This issue always going to be about balancing the rights of content providers and the rights of content consumers
In my view, that's not the issue at all. "Balancing of rights" is a legal proposition. This is about technical mechanisms that restrict how you use your own machines.
Well, the "whims" are all spelled-out for you and known before you pay for it, maybe it is not so bad...
That requires trusting that the terms that were all spelled out will never change. I think that we have a long history (in the US, anyway) that indicates such trust is not warranted.
It seems like there should be some kind of protection for the manufacturer in these cases.
There is. If you use or modify a product in a way that isn't endorsed by the manufacturer, and that use or modification results in harm, the manufacturer is not liable. You are.
The fact that some people make stupid modifications to their equipment is not an argument in favor of JD's stance. It would only be an argument in favor of voiding the warranty.
If I buy a piece of equipment, I have every right to abuse or destroy it in any manner I desire. The OEM should have no ability to stop me.
In our company this is not necessary bad intent towards the customer, but more a way of protection our own business because selling only gives you 1 paycheck, service gives you hundreds in the course of years.
How is that not "bad intent towards the customer?"
I just did a bit of web searching on this topic. It appears that John Deere has been losing market share in the farm equipment sector for years now -- so apparently, farmers are indeed moving to its competitors. It's bad enough that JD is moving more of their focus to construction equipment and away from farming equipment.
Obviously, if someone makes a modification to equipment that results in harm, the person who made the modification is liable. There's no need for a law against making modifications to address this.
No patent in the world can restrict me from doing what I see fit with the things that I own. At worst, when it comes to resale, it can only affect how I do it.
Are you sure? That would be highly unusual. In every case I've seen, health care portals are not run by the company itself, but by a different company acting as a contractor. In each of those cases, my employer has offered intranet access as you describe -- but you can also reach the portal by going directly to the contractor's website outside of the intranet.
If this isn't what your company is doing, then something is very, very wrong with your company's procedures.
the gist is that when you're starting from nothing it is hard to go down. Possible maybe, but difficult.
It may be hard to go down from zero, but it's pretty easy to drag others down to zero with you.
What we have right now when it comes to privacy is, almost literally, nothing.
You won't find many privacy advocates more earnest than me, but, while privacy protections are absolutely lacking, it is not true that they are almost literally nothing. Also, privacy interests have to be balanced against other, equally important interests. A law like this does no such thing. And, in exchange for its "bulldozer" approach, it offers almost no actual privacy protection. So we end up with a law that has significant downsides in the form of infringing on people's rights and getting little upside from it.
I'm trying to suggest that not being current is what does that.
Yes, I understand. But I don't understand why you would think that. The idea that speech has some sort of expiration date past which it is no longer speech is a concept that I am having a seriously hard time wrapping my head around. I do know that there is no legal support for such a position.
By the way, political speech is considered the most protected, but it is not the only protected speech. All speech, outside of a small number of very specific exceptions, is protected free speech. It doesn't matter how important, relevant or old it is, or even if it was in any way sensical.
Does this sound like suppressing speech, or does it sound like burying history?
Both.
I don't find the distinction you're trying to draw between "speech" and "history" to be even slightly persuasive. Most speech is transient, but certainly not all speech. Speech doesn't cease to become speech merely because it was recorded. I would argue that the political diatribes that survived from ancient Rome are still speech, and political speech at that.
So in the end, I don't like it but I understand it and get where they're coming from.
Yes, I also have no trouble understanding where they're coming from. They're being draconian, as they have always been and is their right. It is, after all, their OS and they can do anything they want with it.
It's up to everyone else to decide whether or not they want to accept Microsoft's terms. I think that the reason people are really pissed about the whole thing is because it would cost them a lot of time and money in order to stop using Windows. Often, a prohibitive amount. So, it can begin to feel a bit like extortion.
The reality is that Microsoft is being true to form here. They're taking this as far as they can, and when they take one step too far and anger enough people that it looks like their profit margin might be affected, they will step back one step. Much like they did with Metro.
Slashdot Mirror
the ONLY DRM I've seen that doesn't piss people off and actually gets shit right? Steam.
Steam pisses me off, but it does so to a lesser degree than other similar efforts. I refuse to use it nonetheless.
This issue always going to be about balancing the rights of content providers and the rights of content consumers
In my view, that's not the issue at all. "Balancing of rights" is a legal proposition. This is about technical mechanisms that restrict how you use your own machines.
The easier solution is to do what people do with cars: disconnect the antenna.
Well, the "whims" are all spelled-out for you and known before you pay for it, maybe it is not so bad...
That requires trusting that the terms that were all spelled out will never change. I think that we have a long history (in the US, anyway) that indicates such trust is not warranted.
No, they can't. They can make laws against it, but they can't stop me from doing it.
It seems like there should be some kind of protection for the manufacturer in these cases.
There is. If you use or modify a product in a way that isn't endorsed by the manufacturer, and that use or modification results in harm, the manufacturer is not liable. You are.
That issue is already well covered by terms declaring that such use voids the warranty.
As long as I can use a shovel, do I care, whether I own it?
I can't speak for you, but I care very much whether I own it. If I don't own it, then my use is dependent on the whims of others.
1. They install a mobile modem (with sim) into every tractor
This, I expect. It's what auto manufacturers are doing.
The fact that some people make stupid modifications to their equipment is not an argument in favor of JD's stance. It would only be an argument in favor of voiding the warranty.
If I buy a piece of equipment, I have every right to abuse or destroy it in any manner I desire. The OEM should have no ability to stop me.
In our company this is not necessary bad intent towards the customer, but more a way of protection our own business because selling only gives you 1 paycheck, service gives you hundreds in the course of years.
How is that not "bad intent towards the customer?"
So JD wants to do to tractors what Microsoft is doing to WIndows 10?
I just did a bit of web searching on this topic. It appears that John Deere has been losing market share in the farm equipment sector for years now -- so apparently, farmers are indeed moving to its competitors. It's bad enough that JD is moving more of their focus to construction equipment and away from farming equipment.
The VW case isn't really relevant -- that was VW engaging in fraud. The JD issue is not about fraud (in the legal sense).
when you sign an agreement that says you sign away your rights, that doesn't necessarily mean you actually have signed away your rights.
Technically true, but unless you have a large pile of cash sitting around in order to make your case in court, then this doesn't mean a thing.
Obviously, if someone makes a modification to equipment that results in harm, the person who made the modification is liable. There's no need for a law against making modifications to address this.
No patent in the world can restrict me from doing what I see fit with the things that I own. At worst, when it comes to resale, it can only affect how I do it.
Are you sure? That would be highly unusual. In every case I've seen, health care portals are not run by the company itself, but by a different company acting as a contractor. In each of those cases, my employer has offered intranet access as you describe -- but you can also reach the portal by going directly to the contractor's website outside of the intranet.
If this isn't what your company is doing, then something is very, very wrong with your company's procedures.
I did, and I agree with that assessment.
the gist is that when you're starting from nothing it is hard to go down. Possible maybe, but difficult.
It may be hard to go down from zero, but it's pretty easy to drag others down to zero with you.
What we have right now when it comes to privacy is, almost literally, nothing.
You won't find many privacy advocates more earnest than me, but, while privacy protections are absolutely lacking, it is not true that they are almost literally nothing. Also, privacy interests have to be balanced against other, equally important interests. A law like this does no such thing. And, in exchange for its "bulldozer" approach, it offers almost no actual privacy protection. So we end up with a law that has significant downsides in the form of infringing on people's rights and getting little upside from it.
I'm trying to suggest that not being current is what does that.
Yes, I understand. But I don't understand why you would think that. The idea that speech has some sort of expiration date past which it is no longer speech is a concept that I am having a seriously hard time wrapping my head around. I do know that there is no legal support for such a position.
By the way, political speech is considered the most protected, but it is not the only protected speech. All speech, outside of a small number of very specific exceptions, is protected free speech. It doesn't matter how important, relevant or old it is, or even if it was in any way sensical.
The law would not only apply to search engines. It would apply to everybody. In this respect, at least, it is more honest than the EU RTBF stuff.
Does this sound like suppressing speech, or does it sound like burying history?
Both.
I don't find the distinction you're trying to draw between "speech" and "history" to be even slightly persuasive. Most speech is transient, but certainly not all speech. Speech doesn't cease to become speech merely because it was recorded. I would argue that the political diatribes that survived from ancient Rome are still speech, and political speech at that.
So in the end, I don't like it but I understand it and get where they're coming from.
Yes, I also have no trouble understanding where they're coming from. They're being draconian, as they have always been and is their right. It is, after all, their OS and they can do anything they want with it.
It's up to everyone else to decide whether or not they want to accept Microsoft's terms. I think that the reason people are really pissed about the whole thing is because it would cost them a lot of time and money in order to stop using Windows. Often, a prohibitive amount. So, it can begin to feel a bit like extortion.
The reality is that Microsoft is being true to form here. They're taking this as far as they can, and when they take one step too far and anger enough people that it looks like their profit margin might be affected, they will step back one step. Much like they did with Metro.
Oh, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that.